Citation Nr: 0820341
Decision Date: 06/20/08 Archive Date: 06/25/08
DOCKET NO. 07-11 369 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Chicago,
Illinois
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative
arthritis of the right hip, status-post hip replacement.
2. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative
arthritis of the left knee, claimed as secondary to
degenerative arthritis of the right hip, status-post hip
replacement.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
The veteran
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Van Stewart, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran had active military service from February 1955 to
October 1957. The veteran also served in the Air Force
Reserves until November 1968.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) on appeal of an August 1986 rating decision by the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in
Chicago, Illinois.
This case has been advanced on the docket. 38 U.S.C.A. §
7107(a)(2) (West 2002) and 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2007).
The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management
Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the
appellant if further action is required.
(The Board finds that the claim for service connection for
degenerative arthritis of the left knee, claimed as secondary
to the claimed right hip disability, is inextricably
intertwined with the hip disability. Because the hip issue
is being remanded, adjudication of the left knee claim must
be deferred pending the outcome of the right hip issue. See
Parker v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 116 (1994); Harris v. Derwinski,
1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (issues are "inextricably
intertwined" when a decision on one issue would have a
"significant impact" on a veteran's claim for the second
issue).)
REMAND
The veteran contends that his degenerative arthritis of the
right hip, which resulted in hip replacement surgery, is
etiologically related to an aircraft accident he was in while
on active duty in April 1957. He also contends that he has
degenerative arthritis of the left knee that is secondary to
his right hip disability.
The veteran's service medical records (SMRs) indicate that he
was seen the same day as the accident and was found to be
uninjured. His separation examination is completely negative
as regards any complaint or abnormality regarding either his
right hip or his left knee. In testimony at a March 2008
hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge, the
veteran averred that Dr. Robert G. Thompson, the surgeon who
performed surgery on his hip in 1968, suggested to him that
his hip disability was a result of the accident. The veteran
also testified that he had given Dr. Thompson some paperwork
that he was asked to complete and send to the Air Force
Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, Colorado regarding his
hip disability. The veteran contends that it was this
paperwork the resulted in his being medically retired from
the Air Force Reserves, and suggests that this paperwork will
support his claim.
In written correspondence dated in April 2008, the veteran
stated that he had contacted the National Personnel Records
Center (NPRC) and requested a copy of Dr. Thompson's report.
The veteran wrote that NPRC told him that the report was not
in their files, and was on loan to VA. The veteran requested
that VA provide a copy of the report to him.
The veteran's case file does not contain any documents from
Dr. Thompson. The Board notes that the veteran's SMRs,
obtained from NPRC in July 2005, are of record. However, the
SMRs contain only the medical and dental records associated
with the veteran's active duty period. The report the
veteran avers that Dr. Thompson sent to the Air Force Reserve
Personnel Center, though medical in nature, is related to a
personnel matter, and thus would more logically be a part of
the veteran's personnel record as opposed to his SMR. Since
the Air Force Reserve Personnel Center is the custodian of
all personnel records related to retired reserve Air Force
officers, the Board will remand in order to obtain the
veteran's personnel record from the Air Force Reserve
Personnel Center.
The Board also notes that the veteran has not been apprised
of the criteria for assigning disability ratings and for
award of an effective date. See Dingess/Hartman v.
Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006). The Board therefore will
also remand for that purpose.
Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:
1. The RO must ensure that all
notification and development action
required by the Veterans Claims Assistance
Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114
Stat. 2096 (2000), is completed.
Specifically, the Board notes that the
veteran has not been advised of the
criteria for assignment of disability
ratings and for award of an effective
date. Dingess/Hartman, supra.
2. The RO should obtain the veteran's Air
Force Reserve personnel records from the
Air Force Reserve Personnel Center in
Denver, Colorado. The request to that
agency should specify that VA is
specifically seeking the paperwork
submitted by Dr. Robert G. Thompson in
1968 that is said to be related to the
veteran's right hip disability.
3. After undertaking any other
development deemed appropriate, the RO
should consider the issues on appeal in
light of all information or evidence
received. If any benefit sought is not
granted, the veteran and his
representative should be furnished with a
supplemental statement of the case and
afforded an opportunity to respond before
the record is returned to the Board for
further review.
After expiration of any applicable period allowed for
response, the case should be returned to the Board for
further appellate review, if in order. By this remand, the
Board intimates no opinion as to any final outcome warranted.
No action is required of the veteran until he is notified by
the RO. The veteran has the right to submit additional
evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded
to the AOJ. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).
This case must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO.
The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the
Board or by the Court for additional development or other
appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.
See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2008).
________________________________
STEVEN L. COHN
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans'
Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the
nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a
decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal.
38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2007).